Home > Comps, World Cup > IFSC Lead World Cup Finals! – WOMEN’S Results

IFSC Lead World Cup Finals! – WOMEN’S Results

Austrian Johanna Ernst was the only girl to turn the corner at the top of the wall and fell only two moves shy of the anchors to take the win. She maintained a tie for first through the qualifier and semifinal rounds and climbed with authority to her first place finish. Congratulations Johanna!

Slovenian Mina Markovic in her amazing blue pants came into finals in a tie for first with Johanna Ernst. Mina climbed well, making her way around the corner near the top of the wall where the rest of the girls had fallen and then falling a few holds short of Johanna's highpoint. She looked solid throughout the comp, though on the final she got a little out of sequence and seemed like she might be tiring before pulling it together and magically making her way past most of the competitor's high points. Most of the competitors fell off moving around the to the right corner near the headwall (above the last green volume). Fellow Slovenian Maja Vidmar reached this point with good strength and control and actually controlled a hold around the corner but apparently it was out of sequence and not scored and before she could get back in sequence a foot slip caused her to fall off. Her previous scores kept her in 4th place overall. Mina took 2nd.

3rd place went to Japanese climber Momoka Oda.  Momoka looked strong and in good control until suddenly on the traverse right under the headwall she began to look tired.  Her final score for this problem was technically 42-, the same as Maja’s as well as 5th place Angela Eiter and 6th place Akiyo Noguchi, but countbacks determined their final order.

Sasha DiGiulian, the only American female in finals, climbed well and fell at the same move as the others, but without slapping the usable surface on hold 42 she ended up getting scored at hold 41 and placed 7th. Finally, France’s Charlotte Durif fell a few holds earlier on the rightward traverse and ended up in 8th with 38- points.

Women's Podium. Momoka Oda in 3rd, Mina Markovic in 2nd, and Johanna Ernst in 1st!

Full Women’s Results

Advertisements
  1. October 11, 2011 at 12:41 am

    Jackie wrote:
    Fellow Slovenian Maja Vidmar reached this point with good strength and control and actually controlled a hold around the corner but apparently it was out of sequence and not scored and before she could get back in sequence a foot slip caused her to fall off. Her previous scores kept her in 4th place overall.

    Hmmmm,
    Under international rules a hold is scored as soon as someone makes use of it. (i.e. holds it). for this it does not matter if it’s out of sequence or not. So either the above statement is wrong or the judges did not follow the international rules.

    What i think happenend is that the hold was scored but as the route went the other way it was given less points. for example hold number 41,5.

    I havent seen finals (aired at 3 AM) but I would love to see a picture of this sequence.

  2. Jackie
    October 11, 2011 at 10:06 am

    Hi Herman,

    The only reason I think the hold wasn’t scored is because the competitors who skipped it and slapped the usable surface on the next hold were given 42-, and Sasha DiGiulian, who fell from the same hold but without slapping the usable surface on 42 was scored at 41. But I see what you are saying, they could have retroactively scored the hold Maja grabbed as between 41 and 42 (since it was lower than 42) and therefore called it hold 41.5. In any case, Maja controlled a hold around the corner but even if it was scored it was technically still worth less than just slapping at the hold above it.

    Incidentally, the hold above it that everyone touched usable surface on (42-) was more or less a hamhock/undercling, although you kind of grabbed the top as a sloper to gain control before flipping it and standing up. IMO none of the competitors who fell slapping at it looked even close to controlling the position or hitting the hold in a way where they could have held it. Maja, on the other hand, moved around the corner in control and had an unfortunate foot slip, but not a power failure like the other competitors had.

    I will try to find a picture but the short of it is this: imagine a vertical corner at the top of an overhanging arete. Right hand is on an undercling on the bottom left panel. Left hand is crossed over on a sidepull edge on the top left panel (on the headwall) near the corner. Around the corner in the bottom right panel are no holds and in the upper right panel are 3 holds–two close together down low and one up higher that is the undercling/hamhock. The way it LOOKED was that you should move to the lower set of holds, swing a heel around to match near your hand, then pull up to the undercling and stand up. This is the sequence that Maja began before falling. The other competitors kept their bodies to the left and slapped up at the sloping top of the undercling. Johanna and Mina, the only successful competitors at this point, did the same as those who fell, but they made it work. The move looked hard, and in Mina’s case it seemed certain she would fall off but somehow she pulled herself in enough to hold the sloper and get her foot around to roll the sloper into an undercling and stand up.

  3. October 12, 2011 at 4:22 am

    So trhe big question really is to what extend we should let the (intended) sequence be reflected in the scoring.

    My position, and the official IFSC Position is that we should follow higher (further) = better with only a few exceptions.

    see: https://ifsc.egroupware.net/2011/Admin/Numbering%20handholds%202010.pdf

    So maybe the intended sequence was using the holds on the right but at least 2 competitors used the direct method so we can’t really be sure what the easiest method was. So we should not worry about that.

    We should draw the axis of the route with the least amounts of turns and twist as possible and measure the holds based on that axis.

    From the video it seems that the two holds on the rightshould be scored lower then the left hand on the front since they are below this hold. If the top of those did not already have a number it should be 40.5.

    It might be that the video is a bit angled and that in fact those holds are above (compared to the axis of the route) the one on the left. in that case the top of those should be given 41.5.

    I feel the judges should not “value” the climbers performance to much. They should not ask questions like “how was the move intended, was that body movement really usefull? Could he ever stuck the dyno? was that part of the hold really useable?
    Everytime I see judges ask those questions and use the answers to score the results of the climbers i see mistakes. Mistakes because someone else proves that it IS possible to stick the dyno. mistakes because moving your body really can be a usefull climbing move. mistakes because climbers can hold on to the tiniest of (parts of) holds. Mistakes because climbers do all kind of sequences.

    So i don’t have a problem with everyone getting 42- even if most of the climbers maybe did not touch the top part of the hold and had no chance of sticking the move.

    I also feel that Sacha made a usefull climbing movement from the left hand hold. As she also touched the right hand hold she should either have been given a + (on the left hold , presumably 41+) or on the right hold (presumably not numbered but either 40.5- or 41.5-)

    A last remarks:
    If the intended sequence was using the holds on the right, then we have a lot of movements (hand to the intermediate, heelhook) . Such eleborated foot and body work are nice moves but it is not wise to set these in a decissive part of a route unless you are certain that they can be Judged in a correct way.

    It seems that in this case that was not possible.
    If the holds on the right are below the hold on the left then the climber does not get any points for a hand , a body and a foot movement. that’s a shame because in the ideal situation we want to give points for each action
    If the holds on the right are above the hold on the left then the climber would get extra points for doing those moves. But as we have seen most climbers used the direct approach. This did not happen at this comp but suppose someone made a move from the left hold directly to 42 but missis it by inches. he would get 41+. Now suppose another climber (e.g. Sacha) doesn’ move here body but just extends here arm and touches the hold on the right before falling of. She is scored 41.5-. Which is the better athlete?

    What i am trying to say is that the routesetters should be careful that the moves they create will be judge-able under all circumstances.
    They should even take into account that the climbers will do stuff that is stupid, out of sequence, or maybe brilliant and easier and that the judges (and the setters also) don’t know which of those it is.

  4. Jackie
    October 12, 2011 at 5:35 pm

    Hi Herman,

    Well I stopped by the gym today and checked out the route and I was wrong, the holds out right definitely are lower than hold 41, so I guess with IFSC horizontal scoring any scoring difference wouldn’t have affected Maja Vidmar’s overall position. So, oh well, I guess it’s a mute point. I agree with your last statement though about judge-able moves. Always harder in practice than concept though, huh? : )

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: